datto_edr_locations_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the endpoint is resolved dynamically from this instance's /explorer/swagger.json, and a missing endpoint produces an error listing related models. That dynamic-resolution detail is information an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the failure path. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description adequately conveys that a single location record is returned and what happens on failure. A brief note on the shape of the returned location object would close the remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter, fully documented in the schema as an object GUID at 100% coverage. The description repeats "by id" without adding format, source, or validation guidance, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one Datto EDR location by id") and the singular scope implicitly separates it from datto_edr_locations_list. It never names the list sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than declared.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for use (fetching a single location by id) and an actionable fallback: if the endpoint is absent, use datto_edr_raw_request with a related model from the error. It stops short of explicitly telling the agent to use datto_edr_locations_list for enumeration instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.